Total posts: 4,833
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Universal love is from Christianity not Europe. It just so happened that Europeans were Christians at the time they adopted chattel slavery from Africa.
Mother Theresa? That priest who claimed the natives (on Haiti) were being mistreated?
See if you were the rational one, you wouldn't make absolute categorical statements that are so easily disproved.
And workers have always been bound to obedience to others and punished if they weren't productive.
Punished by ceasing trade. That is not what I'm referring to.
You could describe modern workers in much the same way, like when amazon workers have to pee in bottles or get fired.
Getting fired is the cessation of trade. Amazon doesn't own the apartment and can't publicly shame the worker in a stockade.
You really think that name means africans are running the show?
I think there is an excellent chance the the overseers whipping people are natives.
Then when his cruelty disgusted even slavers, the belgian government had to take it away from him.
Those European sensibilities I talked about.
If they were worse why is there an especially cruel practice Europeans never engaged in?I'm sorry, how is that "especially cruel" but the dismembering Europeans did isn't?
There was never a widespread practice of dismembering anyone in Europe or European colonies. Castration of slaves was widespread in Arab empires. The worst of the ottoman empire was abducting and endlessly raping christian boys but I didn't mention that because it was not wide spread.
You brought up war out of the blue.
The actions of the mongols include what they did after they won the war. It wasn't good.
Could keep going on like that for dozens of pages.Again, I never said slavery in other places was fun.You said it was better.I said it was less terrible.
Which is better.
And nothing you have described is as bad as what white people did to their slaves.
Death, rape, starvation, mutilation. Can't get much worse.
Created:
Posted in:
I can almost guarantee they lie constantly to you
Your guarantee is worth as much to me as information from russian intelligence is worth to you.
Well besides the texts and emails.texts and emails of what? I'm guessing it's some 3rd party texting about a "big guy" with no evidence that joe biden was involved or ever received a single penny.
Even in this article detailing all the evidence of Joe Biden NBC can't help but lie some more:
Former President Donald Trump has falsely claimed that Joe Biden helped oust a Ukrainian prosecutor, Victor Shokin, when he was “prosecuting” Burisma. Multiple U.S. officials testified to Congress that Shokin was forced out in a joint American and British effort because he himself was corrupt.
The only 'evidence' that there was no investigation is the claims of an underling that replaced Shokin. Shokin himself said there was an investigation and no contemporary records have been produced which indicate the investigation was closed.
Lots in there, here is one that leaves little room to wiggle:
[Hunter Biden talking to his daughter] unlike Pop I won’t make you give me half your salary.
Half of salary > single penny.
Does benefiting financially or by escaping prosecution prove that a witness is unreliable?benefitting financially, probably.
Then E Jean Carroll is an unreliable witness, but Manhattan juries don't care.
Escaping prosecution no not really. Escaping prosecution in exchange for testimony is a core part of the justice system.
Well that core needs to be cut out and buried forever.
Part of those deals include that if you lie your deal is void. So they don't have an incentive to lie.
Of course they have an incentive to lie. They will be put in prison if they don't lie. If it's prison one way and prison another it's the chances of being caught in a lie vs the chance of being put in prison without a deal and those chances depend on how crazy the prosecutor or jury pool are vs how little the prosecutor would want to admit that previous prosecutions were based on lies.
no, by literally everyone who has investigated it.
Except the house oversight committee. Oh and look, they have screen shots.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The FBI told you so.uh huh. And some random person you know nothing about said biden was corrupt, and provided no evidence of any kind to support that.
Works for Manhattan juries.
You choose to assume the FBI is lying
Always. They might tell the truth every now and then but it was probably a slip up. Lying by omission is most common, but they'll lie in essence too. They claimed that General Flynn saying "I don't remember" once and giving a guess another time was "lying to the FBI" and proceeded to threaten his children if he didn't confess.
That says alot about you.
It says I pay attention.
I know you listen to people who tell you the opposite all the time, but they are lying.
Yet they don't show a pattern of lying, unlike the so called 'intelligence community'.
There is no evidence.
Well besides the texts and emails.
There are just people like this "witness" who make baseless claims for their own profit.
Does benefiting financially or by escaping prosecution prove that a witness is unreliable?
When those claims are checked, they all come to nothing.
By fact checkers who don't know which way a hat is worn and can't figure out babylon bee is satire. Flipping a coin is more reliable.
Created:
Posted in:
The cruelest slavery has always been and still is west and north African slavery. The cruelty of colonial American slavery (including the Spanish, and Portuguese colonies) was imported from there where the slaves came from.where did you get this idea from?
General impression of original sources.
That cruelty was heavily attenuated by European sensibilities and the christian emphasis on universal love.what?!?!?! Europeans absolutely did not have sensibilities of Universal love. Anyone with even a passing understanding of History would know that.
Universal love is from Christianity not Europe. It just so happened that Europeans were Christians at the time they adopted chattel slavery from Africa.
The 'slavery' of medieval Europe was so regulated as to make it reasonable to deny it was slavery (serfs and indentured servants).serfdom isn't slavery.
See what I mean.
The people were not owned. They were not property. They were certainly treated like crap, but they were not the property of their lord.
What is ownership? Lords could transfer lands and serfs were attached to the land. Serfs were bound to obedience and to productivity and there were severe punishments for those who flaunted their purported duties. Still the argument that they were not slaves is that it was not a crime (for most of the period) to leave if you're willing to abandon everything but the clothes on your back.
The worst of the slavery in the united states is of course worse than the best slavery in west Africa or the arab empires, but it's not worse than the worst of those regions.This is objectively not true.
Then find your worst and I'll find my worst.
The worst of slavery in the United states isn't as bad as other European colonies like Haiti or the Belgian congo, but it is still just as brutal as anything africans ever did.
If it was in the Congo there is an excellent chance it was africans doing it. You don't get to attribute a race (or culture group) with special cruelty because a few benefited from ongoing cruelty outside their group.
Castration is cruel.I never said it wasn't. I said that Europeans were worse.
If they were worse why is there an especially cruel practice Europeans never engaged in?
I was talking about slavery, you then brought up war.
You think there wasn't war in Haiti?
Those are completely different topics and shows that you either don't take this conversation seriously, or you know your point is so weak that you need to move the goalposts.
That you ignored the quotes from the second link shows that you don't take this conversation seriously or you know your point is so weak that you need to ignore counterexamples.
Could keep going on like that for dozens of pages.Again, I never said slavery in other places was fun.
You said it was better.
Created:
but who would have the kind of institutional power required to make people with the wrong values and character popular?
Why would they do it?
Frodo: But the deep state was destroyed.
The unaccountable bureaucracy/mega corp ring whispers
Created:
Posted in:
If he wants me to stop posting this, the shit-stain pathological liar IwantRooseveltagain can show where I implied it was acceptable to say "a woman wanted to be raped" in reference to a real rape as opposed to referencing the allusion (by said woman) to rape fantasies.
[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So you assume that Christian parent using deception and force on a child is okay
Read more carefully.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I oppose using force or deception to alter the mentoring relationship between parents and children when parents aren't using violence. There is a difference.But you support Christians forcing their lies on children, so thats another contradiction.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Also, you dont decide what is good in long term for others, people decide that for themselves.
I do get to decide, I just don't get to force.
Nothing else you said warrants a comment.
Created:
Posted in:
If he wants me to stop posting this, the shit-stain pathological liar IwantRooseveltagain can show where I implied it was acceptable to say "a woman wanted to be raped" in reference to a real rape as opposed to referencing the allusion (by said woman) to rape fantasies.
[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
The FBI told you so.The man lied to the FBI
It's also important to note that literally no one has been able to find a shred of evidence of biden being corrupt.
lol
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Interesting that you find the claim that homosexuality isn't the ideal outcome homophobic.If person wants to be homosexual, it is an ideal outcome for him.
People often want things they can't have or that are good in the short term but not the long term.
But you cant apply it equally because, as previously explained, Christians had their fun for thousands of years and LGBT needs fun too.
They're owed a thousand years of indoctrination? Good luck justifying that moral theory.
plus a false claim that Christians are convincing their children through reason.
That was not implied.
That is not the issue I am contending. I am saying that if you've got a kid of a flat earther and the parent forbids teaching round earth it's better to teach the kid logic so he can cure himself of the delusion rather than making an issue of it and having the kid withdrawn from your school entirelyThats an assumption. And false.
It's an assertion supported by the relative value of outcomes. I won't take your word that it is false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
A ruling that is obviously wrong if it occurred since it would imply that courts can declare an incomplete set of rights by whim.I mean, at this point there is no point discussing this with you.
Not after you were so clearly proven wrong I know.
You say it is "obviously wrong", but most lawyers and judges would disagree with you.
Don't know if that's true but I don't care. The text means what it means. Interpretations which lead to contradictions and absurdities are not relevant when interpretations that don't lead to contradictions and absurdities are possible.
Partial rights to liberty is just a deceptive way to describe inequitable tyranny.as opposed to what? Every right is partial. Every. single. one. There is no such thing as a right without limits.
The limits of a right are in its definition and the definition flows from the justification if the right is real (objective).
That has nothing to do with what is written in the constitution. If courts get to take words out of context and use them to justify some rights in some circumstances (depending on whim since using that technique could just as easily justify any claim of a right) then the constitution does not matter, only the opinion of judges; and you can't assert that the opinion of judges is the final word because you're complaining about the opinion of judges.
I would ban taxes in an instant, but the implication is that taxes would be unconstitutional.How do you imagine such a thing would go?Well, if you have a better system ready to go.you didn't answer my question. How do you think a system without taxes would exist?
Imagine a road. Now imagine it was built by stealing. Now imagine it was built by loans secured against future tolls.
Voila. Enlightenment.
How would society not collapse into some dictatorial mess?
If tax burden guarantees democracy then how do you explain the fascists? The romans? Every empire?
Voting isn't that expensive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Now if you pointed out that some American slaves freed themselves, and then bought slaves... would that be slavery apologetics? What about the fact that some were paid?my point was that the form of slavery used by white people was horrifying and much, much worse than the forms other cultures used.
That's bullshit.
The cruelest slavery has always been and still is west and north African slavery. The cruelty of colonial American slavery (including the Spanish, and Portuguese colonies) was imported from there where the slaves came from.
That cruelty was heavily attenuated by European sensibilities and the christian emphasis on universal love.
The slavery of classical European civilizations was far less cruel and more comparable to the slavery in India and China. The 'slavery' of medieval Europe was so regulated as to make it reasonable to deny it was slavery (serfs and indentured servants).
Any practice in any civilization will show a range of degree across any measurable quantity and the same is true of slavery. The worst of the slavery in the united states is of course worse than the best slavery in west Africa or the arab empires, but it's not worse than the worst of those regions.
The average experience of the American slave is not even close to being "whipped to death". Most went years without being whipped and many were never whipped, not because their master didn't have a legal right but because it takes a certain structure of diffused responsibility, short sighted ambition, or psychopathy to think whipping someone repeatedly is the best way to get productivity out of them. In other words a giant plantation where the whipping is to put fear into the others and the master imported especially cruel men to do the dirty work.
When John Brown offered American slaves rifles they did not take them. He did not expect that. Did he underestimate their fear or overestimate their dissatisfaction?
The evil in slavery is in the deprivation of the objective right to liberty. Cruelty has got nothing to do with that, but by comparing cruelty (and being wrong on it to boot) you obscure that fact.
You know the arab empires castrated their black slaves right? Also turks are pretty light skinned.I'm not really seeing how this connects to my point.
Castration is cruel.
Nothing in the rest of the world compares to the horror of what was done to slaves in "western" countries.
In the houses of wealthy citizens, it is not unusual to find twenty to thirty slaves attending upon a family. Even citizens in the humbler walks of life deem it necessary to have each a slave or two. The price of a slave varies, of course, according to age, health, strength, and general appearance. The average price is from fifty to one hundred dollars, but in time of war, or revolution, poor parents, on the verge of starvation, offer their sons and daughters for sale at remarkably low prices. I remember instances of parents, rendered destitute by the marauding bands who invested the two southern Kwangs in 1854–55, offering to sell their daughters in Canton for five dollars apiece. ...
The slavery to which these unfortunate persons are subject, is perpetual and hereditary, and they have no parental authority over their offspring. The great-grandsons of slaves, however, can, if they have sufficient means, purchase their freedom. ...
Masters seem to have the same uncontrolled power over their slaves that parents have over their children. Thus a master is not called to account for the death of a slave, although it is the result of punishment inflicted by him.
In former times slaves were slain and offered in sacrifice to the spirit of the owner when dead, or by him to his ancestors: sometimes given as a substitute to suffer the death penalty incurred by his owner or in fulfilment of a vow. It used to be customary in Kuei-chou (and Szü-chuan too, I believe) to inter living slaves with their dead owners; the slaves were to keep a lamp burning in the tomb....
During the millennium long Chinese domination of Vietnam, Vietnam was a large source of slave girls who were used as sex slaves in China.
Could keep going on like that for dozens of pages.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
The version with an objective and sound arguments concluding it.Liberty says you can't steal money to buy schools which indoctrinate kids against parent's values.Your version of liberty, yes.
I also want the best for people, and the best thing for anyone in general is to find a lifelong partner of the opposite sex (and same species) and have 2-4 kids. That is what makes people happy. I've seen overwhelming evidence of that. Having promiscuous sex may hamper that goal. Having a baby with someone you aren't really compatible with (say because it was an unintended pregnancy in high-school) really hampers this goal.As much as your homophobic assumptions are fun to read, they are also false.
I doubt it. Interesting that you find the claim that homosexuality isn't the ideal outcome homophobic.
If people can't have that due to sexual orientation beyond their control, I still want them to have the best life possible; but 'we' should never do anything that would convince an impressionable young mind that they are in this category. If they are, they should come to that conclusion based on the undeniable evidence of their own urges.So you are okay with Christians brainwashing their kids and putting them in categories, but God forbid if someone teaches a child that gay is okay.
I'm not OK with it but I won't use force or deception to prevent it. It's the way our species works. You don't get between a mammal and his/her children. It won't end well.
But for you, its only bad when LGBT does it!
I did not say that. It's bad in either case. However the LGBT cult has infected corporations and schools. If I had bible quizes at my work place you can bet I would be just as pissed. Similarly I wouldn't dream of using force or lies to prevent an LGBT cultist from trying to teach their children (in the rare case they have one) their values.
You want to kill an idea long term? Force it on the young. They may not all deconvert but those that do will never relapse. I have no doubt the same is in the process of happening for the LGBT cult and I dearly hope the coming sexual conservatism doesn't harm more innocent people than are already being harmed.Your "forcing idea" would just result in that you cant teach kids anything, maybe other than scientific facts.
1.) It's immoral to force kids into your education system
2.) Therefore the only moral way to educate kids is with the full and honestly gained consent of the adult and child
3.) Thus if a parent has an objection to only one subject or claim the choice is between teaching that one claim and teaching nothing
4.) It's better to teach everything else minus that one claim
5.) The only moral way to convince someone is through reason. Teach kids reason and then when they are adults and can evaluate your arguments correctly make the argument. This is the difference between indoctrination and debate.
Its a scientific fact that masturbation is healthy
Perhaps. It's almost certainly more healthy than drinking the syrup they sell as drinks.
That is not the issue I am contending. I am saying that if you've got a kid of a flat earther and the parent forbids teaching round earth it's better to teach the kid logic so he can cure himself of the delusion rather than making an issue of it and having the kid withdrawn from your school entirely.
I dont even see why you fight battles which you will obviously lose.
That is what I'm saying to you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Unfortunately that is the case. So for example owning a gun or speech. They are enumerated rights.no it isn't.
Yes it is.
And the Supreme court ruled that it wasn't the case.
A ruling that is obviously wrong if it occurred since it would imply that courts can declare an incomplete set of rights by whim.
Partial rights to liberty is just a deceptive way to describe inequitable tyranny.
For example if you ban walking down a street except for white people what you've really done is ban black people from walking down the street.
It's not fine. It's objectively immoral. It would however be constitutional if you replace "government" with "federal/state congress enact a veto proof law".It would not be constitutional.
It would be constitutional.
The courts would strike such a law down.
If the definition of constitutional is what courts would strike down, then Roe v Wade was unconstitutional. QED
I would ban taxes in an instant, but the implication is that taxes would be unconstitutional.How do you imagine such a thing would go?
Well, if you have a better system ready to go.
Because the obvious answer is the collapse of society.
Yea that's what they said about seceding from the UK, ending slavery, letting women vote, and failing to imprison homosexuals.
There is a reason taxes exist in every country in the world.
Yea that reason is: people with a monopoly on military power are going to use it to keep it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The individual who made this uprising comment was talking about some vague notion of people somewhere doing something on some date. Those two things are not comparable.
So your theory is that you can predict violence and that's not incitement but only when there is no date attached?
If there is a date attached, now it's incitement?
So how do you respond? By pointing out that the individual making the uprising claim was speaking to someone, just like Trump. Wow, good one.
You said:
[Double_R] That has absolutely no relation to a comment made by some obscure politician expressing a viewpoint aimed at no one.
That's a bit silly and I pointed that out.
So for example the notion that context matters when trying to understand what someone is saying is labeled as a tactic of manipulation regardless of the fact that's it a basic reality about communication.
It's the notion that you can throw "context" out like a pokemon card and then you don't have to find a defamatory statement that continues to simultaneously disgust and amuse me.
Under that theory BLM riots contained tens of thousands of assassinsAnd I've repeatedly denounced the actions of those who looted or rioted, so what's your point?
My point is clearly and repeatedly to apply the standards you imply to the big picture instead of the narrow targets you intend.
You can run, but you can't hide. The left-tribe is worse on violence.Anyone who believes political violence is acceptable is not my tribe.
Yet you don't consider them insurrectionists despite many meeting the definition you imply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Unfortunately that is the case. So for example owning a gun or speech. They are enumerated rights.Due process of law means you pass a law, then you put them on trial, then you throw them in jail.so by your measure, anything the constitution doesn't explicitly say is protected isn't protected?
"life, liberty, or property" guarantees nothing if a legislature passes a law, a prosecutor charges, and a jury convicts.
So if the government said you couldn't drink water ever again, the constitution doesn't explicitly say you have a right to drink water, so you can just die and that's totally fine.
It's not fine. It's objectively immoral. It would however be constitutional if you replace "government" with "federal/state congress enact a veto proof law".
I dream of liberty, and taxes are the first thing on the list.I'm not even sure what this means. Is the implication you would ban taxes?
I would ban taxes in an instant, but the implication is that taxes would be unconstitutional.
That's a weird way of saying you want to destroy the country.
You've lost this debate before, you just don't remember.
Created:
You have to understand that Christians and traditional parents are the fortress of evil and most of anti-reason.
I see plenty of irrational belief systems. It's nothing but narrow prejudice to think Christians are the only or greatest example in today's culture.
I dont know why someone like you defends traditional families.I thought you are into bestiality?
I'm much more into reason and liberty. Liberty says you can't steal money to buy schools which indoctrinate kids against parent's values. Reason says if you try you're going to get guillotined.
I also want the best for people, and the best thing for anyone in general is to find a lifelong partner of the opposite sex (and same species) and have 2-4 kids. That is what makes people happy. I've seen overwhelming evidence of that. Having promiscuous sex may hamper that goal. Having a baby with someone you aren't really compatible with (say because it was an unintended pregnancy in high-school) really hampers this goal.
If people can't have that due to sexual orientation beyond their control, I still want them to have the best life possible; but 'we' should never do anything that would convince an impressionable young mind that they are in this category. If they are, they should come to that conclusion based on the undeniable evidence of their own urges.
Christians cannot be convinced into anything, since the reasoning ability usually dies when person is religious for too long.
...and children can be made to believe anything when they're young enough. But they grow up, and when they do they look back and realize that they would have believed anything they were told. Then they feel resentment for being used.
This has happened to millions of people raised in religions and is the main source of the bitter atheist.
You want to kill an idea long term? Force it on the young. They may not all deconvert but those that do will never relapse. I have no doubt the same is in the process of happening for the LGBT cult and I dearly hope the coming sexual conservatism doesn't harm more innocent people than are already being harmed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
It does say "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
Due process of law means you pass a law, then you put them on trial, then you throw them in jail.
If the entire left-tribe (or you personally) were interested in reinterpreting that bill as a right to liberty notwithstanding the action of legislatures sign me up. I dream of liberty, and taxes are the first thing on the list.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I don't trust the FBI.The FBI investigated and confirmed his statements were lies and that he hadn't even spoken to the people he claimed to have gotten the information from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
just to highlight that it wasn't some horrible fate
Now if you pointed out that some American slaves freed themselves, and then bought slaves... would that be slavery apologetics? What about the fact that some were paid?
So stop apologizing for slavery in the ottoman empire.
You know the arab empires castrated their black slaves right? Also turks are pretty light skinned.And it was absolutely nothing like what white people were doing.
Because the white countries were whipping their slaves to death to make them work harder. Other countries' versions of slavery didn't really do that.
You're nuts. (whipping to death was rare everywhere and there were plenty of slaves worked to death outside of Europe & colonies)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
They set aside decades of case law.
and finally stated the obvious: The constitution does not imply anything about abortion.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
It would greatly help children with religious parents, since we know all the lies religious people spread about masturbation even today.
Yea when you, who have advocated for reducing the age of consent, admit that your goal is to undermine the religion of parents; things don't go well.
I'd like to see a more sexually liberal world more than most, but not by brainwashing the kids with the explicit presumption that traditional parents are the problem. That is the kind of thing that causes handmaid tale backlash.
Convince adults. They will teach their kids. This is the proper way.
Even now there is a backlash in the youngest generations, predictable as ever. All children rebel against indoctrination, it's instinctual. The fact that they are rebelling against the LGBT cult is further evidence that they were indoctrinated.
Also, religious people spread lies such as that semen retention turns you into some sort of a super human.
Some do. We don't need classes explaining how astrology is bullshit and mana crystals aren't real. Teach kids reason and they will become the fishermen.
Created:
[IWRA] The FBI told them that the intelligence was not vetted but they didn’t care.
So who were the disgraced and shamed intel analysts and officials? Here’s the list of people who shouldn’t have a job informing the public about anything or ever appear on cable news again:
- Mike Hayden, former CIA director, now analyst for CNN
- Jim Clapper, former director of national intelligence, now CNN pundit
- Leon Panetta, former CIA director and defense secretary
- John Brennan, former CIA director, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC
- Thomas Fingar, former National Intelligence Council chair, now teaches at Stanford University
- Rick Ledgett, former National Security Agency deputy director, now a director at M&T Bank
- John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director, now teaches at Johns Hopkins University
- Michael Morell, former CIA acting director, now at George Mason University
- Mike Vickers, former defense undersecretary for intelligence, now on board of BAE Systems
- Doug Wise, former Defense Intelligence Agency deputy director, teaches at University of New Mexico
- Nick Rasmussen, former National Counterterrorism Center director, now executive director, Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism
- Russ Travers, former National Counterterrorism Center acting director
- Andy Liepman, former National Counterterrorism Center deputy director
- John Moseman, former CIA chief of staf
- Larry Pfeiffer, former CIA chief of staff, now senior advisor to The Chertoff Group
- Jeremy Bash, former CIA chief of staff, now analyst for NBC and MSNBC
- Rodney Snyder, former CIA chief of staff
- Glenn Gerstell, former National Security Agency general counsel
- David Priess, former CIA analyst and manager
- Pam Purcilly, former CIA deputy director of analysis
- Marc Polymeropoulos, former CIA senior operations officer
- Chris Savos, former CIA senior operations officer
- John Tullius, former CIA senior intelligence officer
- David A. Vanell, former CIA senior operations officer
- Kristin Wood, former CIA senior intelligence officer, now non-resident fellow, Harvard
- David Buckley, former CIA inspector general
- Nada Bakos, former CIA analyst and targeting officer, now senior fellow, Foreign Policy Research Institute
- Patty Brandmaier, former CIA senior intelligence officer
- James B. Bruce, former CIA senior intelligence office
- David Cariens, former CIA intelligence analyst
- Janice Cariens, former CIA operational support officer
- Paul Kolbe, former CIA senior operations officer
- Peter Corsell, former CIA analyst
- Brett Davis, former CIA senior intelligence officer
- Roger Zane George, former national intelligence officer:
- Steven L. Hall, former CIA senior intelligence officer
- Kent Harrington, former national intelligence officer
- Don Hepburn, former national security executive, now president of Boanerges Solutions LLC
- Timothy D. Kilbourn, former dean of CIA’s Kent School of Intelligence Analysis
- Ron Marks, former CIA officer
- Jonna Hiestand Mendez, former CIA technical operations officer, now on board of the International Spy Museum
- Emile Nakhleh, former director of CIA’s Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program, now at University of New Mexico
- Gerald A. O’Shea, former CIA senior operations officer
- Nick Shapiro, former CIA deputy chief of staff and senior adviser to the director
- John Sipher, former CIA senior operations officer
- Stephen Slick, former National Security Council senior director for intelligence programs
- Cynthia Strand, former CIA deputy assistant director for global issues
- Greg Tarbell, former CIA deputy executive director
- David Terry, former National Intelligence Collection Board chairman
- Greg Treverton, former National Intelligence Council chair, now senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
- Winston Wiley, former CIA director of analysis
Also:
If he wants me to stop posting this, the shit-stain pathological liar IwantRooseveltagain can show where I implied it was acceptable to say "a woman wanted to be raped" in reference to a real rape as opposed to referencing the allusion (by said woman) to rape fantasies.
[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
Created:
Posted in:
If he wants me to stop posting this, the shit-stain pathological liar IwantRooseveltagain can show where I implied it was acceptable to say "a woman wanted to be raped" in reference to a real rape as opposed to referencing the allusion (by said woman) to rape fantasies.
[IwantRooseveltagain] You are so ridiculous. Saying a woman wanted to be raped is acceptable to you but making fun of an obnoxious loser who is inadequate with women is over the line. [https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/422866]
Created:
Posted in:
To state the obvious, it was a coincidence.In general, the countries that abolished slavery first tended to be white majority countries.WHITE POWER! God bless Western Civilization!
Yes, thanks to the philosophers. They did this, and there was improvements in India and the far east under the influence of... more philosophers.
It's almost like ethics is a branch of philosophy and people behave more ethically when they actually think about ethics.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Moral subjectivism makes my stomach queasy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
The fact that she used the word insist already refutes that we're talking about anyone who wants to go through it.
She (taking your word on gender) said 'insist' about LGBT. Not the therapy.
It goes without saying that therapy is consensual. It's a felony to abduct people (unless you're the FBI, then you can do whatever you want).
There were de-conversion programs for homosexuality and those were attacked to the point of extinction on the basis that it was medical malpractice. That is the only thing that could be reasonably interpreted as the "wrong" in this context <- note context being used correctly instead of a magic word which frees you of the need for substance.
Created:
That's not what sex ed is forthat's my point, they're teaching you how to actually fuck each other safely rather than teaching you the actual safest outlet ever, because of irrational hierarchy of what's worse to teach.
Well they don't need to be taught how to masturbate. It's safe, and easy to figure out. So if you don't want them to know how to fuck each other safely there really isn't much to teach. Maybe how to access porn without infecting your computer with spyware but honesty OS improvements have made that easy and it's hard to grasp just how computer competent the newer generations are already.
I doubt any teen who wants to have sex with other teens is holding off in lieu of a sex ed class. They can find out anything they want with google.
Now there is theory and practice, and the fact that they have books with graphic anal rape scenes and they insist on it (calling it book banning if you object) tells me they're not exactly "sticking to the facts".
So if you're saying they're not just warning but encouraging I don't particularly doubt it.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
I provided an example and you just said "outlier" I could provide 10 more and you would say the same thing. I find it hard that this thing that has been all over the media you haven't seen because right-wing sites will actually show pictures from the books. All I can think of is that you are a partisan hack that only follows left wing sources.
That's a good call. He'll post a source himself with 4 examples contradicting his conclusion and still ignore it.
Created:
You’re a shit stain liar
I have receipts, unlike you.
Created:
Yea I don't think anybody needs help masturbating, at 15 or any other age. That's not what sex ed is for, and sex ed is not the same as what people are calling grooming.
The 'grooming' is the intentional creation of an culture where being abnormal is cool and socially rewarded.
It's always going to be an unstable equilibrium, but victimless sexual deviancy should always be tolerated without bullying and without being encouraged or praised. That's true at any age but as with everything else children are more vulnerable to errors in either direction.
Created:
-->
@whiteflame
Ah suddenly a wild moderator appears. Did someone have to email your personal address or do you just ignore all the reports of IWRA's vile personal attacks?
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Well except for 1/3 of an entire generation claiming to be "a bit" "LGBT". That part is hard data.Insisting that there will soon be a massive conspiracy to make America gay is classic, kooky, conspiracy theory bullshit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
That has absolutely no relation to a comment made by some obscure politician expressing a viewpoint aimed at no one.
It's just a kind of tradition to address no one by by standing at a podium and talking to a camera transmitting to millions.
Pointing out your double standards is not whataboutism. It was always my point.This is yet again, another whataboutism because you cannot defend your own bullshit
My theory is that people who have already demonstrated their violent intentions... Cannot be asserted as non-violent. This is basic common sense.
Your theory is that people who broke windows would also harm people. Under that theory BLM riots contained tens of thousands of assassins. You can run, but you can't hide. The left-tribe is worse on violence. That's why you lose every single point of comparison. You can't utter a single principle that doesn't incriminate the left-tribe more, and I'm not even close to being tired of pointing that out so please try again.
Ah yes of course, what were those Capitol police officers thinking by trying to stop a mob from breaking into the US Capitol while Congress was certifying the results of the presidential election? Why didn't they just get out of the way? Silly them.
Red herring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Trump's "will be wild" post was an obvious allusion to violence. Shrug that off all you want, it's still true.
If "will be wild" is an allusion to violence. "uprisings all the time" is 5X allusion to violence.
If you are going to offer an alternative theory of motivation then you absolutely need to show your theory more reasonable
Check
My theory only requires that the people rioting were doing so because they were following the leader with no coherent plan on what to do next.
Your theory allows for incoherent people but you would not allow that people thought protesting would change the behavior of politicians because it was too irrational to think such a thing. Mmmm
Your theory is that the people who beat up police officers in order to get to Congress...
All 10 of them would not have been enough to do anything when the others held them back. They didn't beat up police for the sake of beating up police, they beat through police. Any police who got out the way had nothing to worry about. This is on the record.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
when conservatives make laws to prevent it, the left throws hissy fits.
There you have it. Actions speak louder than words. If a person thought it was socially immoral they wouldn't mind it being banned.
Same with election integrity BTW.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As it stands, the only competition for those underfunded jobs are those who can successfully form corrupt ties that make those jobs worth it in their "self-interest"
Well, there are some principled people but it appears rare.
Wouldn't having something at stake such as a 10 million dollar job force those officeholders to guard against the vast amount of honest competition for that job?
There would be more competition, but the two party system is a powerful filter. Most candidates remain obscure without support from within party hierarchy.
The only difference I see here is that the corrupt private entities wouldn't have to jump through hoops to pay bribes. See:
Now:
Evil Inc. (A local branch of the deep state) Hey Bob, if you run for office we'll donate to your campaign and pull strings so you have a good chance of winning. All you have to do is vote our way sometimes.
Bob: What do I get out of it?
Evil Inc. *sigh* fine, we can arrange to have your family members get easy absurdly high paying jobs, give you insider trading information, buy your sons art, and maybe some direct cash if we can hide it.
After:
Evil Inc. (A local branch of the deep state) Hey Bob, if you run for office we'll donate to your campaign and pull strings so you have a good chance of winning. All you have to do is vote our way sometimes.
Bob: So you'll get me a job that pays $10mil and all I have to do is vote your way? Sign me up (wrings hands evily)
Evil Inc. In case your thinking about double crossing us, we'll just leak this arrangement. (Also double crossing is possible currently too)
There is still a corrupt motivation: get in office, and still a corrupting agenda: vote X way. All that changes is that the office itself becomes sufficient motivation to enter the corrupt deal.
It also provides a new risk/reward calculus for Senators when deciding to take corrupt money or not.
Yes it shifts that curve to the impediment of corruption. I agree.
I just can't get excited about it with the glaring error being that the senator can steal money. So long as that is happening someone will find a way to make it worth his while even if they have to buy him out before he's elected.
I made a thread before about this saying if you want CEO type people in the government, you need to provide equal compensation.
Well that makes sense in the context of government projects with resources and goals. What lawmakers should be concerning themselves with is justice, not economics. The separation of economics and law is a necessary step on the road to my utopia BTW.
I don't want project managing senators. I want project managing project managers and I want savy investors to be the ones to help the public evaluate the feasibility of different plans for government action.
Of course they should be compensated in proportion to their success and if government (the people) can't bring themselves to offer competitive compensation then they obviously don't care about their money. They'll learn, they just need to be given the reigns for a while.
Created:
Apparently she admitted to the three way. That makes me well disposed towards her. In my experience sexual deviants who can resist the lure of the LGBT cult tend to be people of remarkable objectivity and character. I might send her an email encouraging her to stand strong.
Created:
I'm 99.95% sure you're making that up because you are trapped in a semantic loop created by the propagandists who control your mind. You think she implied that by not wanting to tell five year olds they might be in the wrong body or show 10 year olds incestuous anal rape scenes.She says gay people are terrible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
On limiting to single terms: Not really getting to the heart of the problem. It simply shifts the window of corruption to before an election, which in theory is a disadvantage to corruptors since may have to guess which candidate might win. In reality though they will simply approach them all, and in heavy corruption they'll be part of a cabal that routes partners to major party nominations.
Paying members of congress 10 million per year: Again, it mitigates potential corruption. However it also creates new causes of corruption. When being elected has such rewards there will be plenty who seek to win merely to be paid and they say 1/3 of people will kill for a million dollars.
The key to getting people to behave well is to motivate them to behave well with their own self-interest. That's actually a point against having a single term. Relection gives politicians a reason to stay popular instead of just walking the line of corruption openly or having some other bizarre agenda.
Carrot or the stick. Either find a way to make corruption risky, pay peanuts, or outbid the corruption. Towards that end imagine something like: You only get one term, and you don't get most of the money unless the majority votes that you did a good job at the end of your single term. Or make it continuous so that the more people who approve of your job the higher the payout.
That of course relies on the premise that public approval is the opposite of corruption, and that is not always the case. There is no substitute for sound moral analysis and the way to integrate that into government is via bills of rights which need to be much more broad, binding, and final.
Money is not the only thing that corrupts, power corrupts: Absolutely true, and too often ignored. Money only motivates people because it is economic power. The power to give you a vacation, to spend more time with your family, to help the homeless near your house. Power isn't good or evil, but it feels good whether you use it for good or evil and nobody wants less.
People who see that there are a thousand overseas US military bases and think it should be 2000 don't view themselves as corrupt, but they are dangerous.
We don't need old money or useless people: Insofar as it makes sense to limit the pool to a certain kind of economic behavior I think we would see significant improvement in the quality of our government if we did limit candidates to "self made men". People who seriously increased their assets since turning 18. Say +500% with a minimum of a million. This requirement would exclude Biden, however Trump would easily qualify even at the left-tribes suspect evaluations of $3B net worth / $60M inheritance.
The road to Utopia is the road to Hell: I have been accused of being a utopian thinker and not without cause. I would disagree with this statement in general framing. I would point out that if things keep getting worse, maybe you're not on the road to utopia. Communists, fascists, nazis, John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, they all had their theories about how things will work and how they ought to work to make things better.
The difference is that when you try a little bit of communism, fascism, or nazism things get a lot worse and when you try a little bit of John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire things get a bit better (you know, like having people not stave, ending slavery, and industrial revolutions).
I have a utopian vision, and I even think there would be band-aids that need to be ripped off to get there quickly; but what I definitely don't claim is that partial progress towards the ideal would accompany an average negative slope in quality of life or individual justice. If the theory is right then the closer you get the better things will be. No leaps of faith required.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It's quite amusing watching you try to argue that the people beating up police officers with flag poles and spraying then with bear mace were really just constitutional strategists who did all of this because they had a plan to get the electors sent back to the states, a plan that btw, wanted nothing to do with violence against members of Congress.
It's no longer amusing to point out your obvious strawmen.
So out of control that they set things on fire, causing the demonstration to be fiery in a literal sense. Oh wait, they didn't set anything on fire, that was the left.... using fire bombs they made with premeditation, and then it was called fiery but mostly peaceful by left-tribe propagandists as the flames blazed high.Great argument as to how Trump's "will be wild" comment was not a clear indication of violence.
It's a great argument about yardsticks. You decide how pearl clutchy you want to be, I'm just keeping you honest (well of course I can't, but I can point out the dishonesty which is what I just did).
Historians are already ranking Trump the worst president in the country's history
I already rank those historians as the worst historians of this decade, and I have no doubt they will soon be forgotten.
That's not going to change.
I think it will become part of history in the same way the concept of jewish" and "aryan" science are now understood to be examples of the all encompassing corruption which post-rational ideology insists on.
And your theory on that is that they thought yelling at Congress or Pence would cause them to change their minds.
That is the theory of protests.
Setting aside of course that you don't have a shred of evidence to support this,
and you have no evidence you haven't stopped beating your wife yet.
You have put forth a theory of motivation that requires there are no better explanations, and there are. I don't need to prove those other explanations for them to be better explanations than your zero evidence theory.
that's just plain stupid.
Of course you need to firebomb federal court houses if you want real change.
Yeah, that's what it looks like when you find yourself trying to argue something even you know is ridiculous.
The only thing that would be ridiculous would be believing numbers from the propagandists who continue to claim Brian Sicknick was murdered and yet he walked home afterward.
It's like a crime-comedy and I give it the gravity that deserves.
Created:
“Gay people are terrible. We shouldn’t allow children to know they exist”
“I love to eat pussy and have sex with other women while my husband watches and jerks off”
Well.. she didn't tell the children she loves to do that did she?
(All assuming your claims are true, which is an unsafe assumptions seeing as you're a pathological liar)
Created:
-->
@Double_R
He's no true scotsman either.Then that principal is an idiot. What does that have to do with liberals vs conservatives?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
IF congress rejected the electors and states choose new electors there would be genuine elections again.Thus elections would no longer be rigged.Which is all irrelevant to the discission.
It is not if they believed it was possible and they did.
have you ever heard of a wild but peaceful demonstration?I've heard of fiery but mostly peaceful demonstrations.Fiery means passionate. Wild means out of control. Says people who speak English.
So out of control that they set things on fire, causing the demonstration to be fiery in a literal sense. Oh wait, they didn't set anything on fire, that was the left.... using fire bombs they made with premeditation, and then it was called fiery but mostly peaceful by left-tribe propagandists as the flames blazed high.
But that's fine. "Will be wild" when referring to a political protest doesn't mean violent, according to you. Because that makes sense.
Maybe he should have said "it will be an uprising". That would have been peaceful right?
Just another example of the knots one has to twist themselves in to defend Donald Trump.
Yep, these sure are tangled knots I'm tying. I wonder if forty years from now historians will scour the internet and interview people and you'll be asked if you really believed what you were typing.
No Vice President is going to change their mind on whether they should certify the United States presidential election
What if that vice president was named Donald Trump? Steve Bannon? Kari Lake?
Right, 10 Trump supporters who managed to injure 140 Capitol police officers.
and murder half the population of the world with fire extinguishers as well as turning Nancy Pelosi into a newt (it got better).
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Science has already proved that Christianity is child abuse.
Fauci sure is busy, but is there sound arguments based on repeatable observations supporting that conclusion? With what definition of abuse?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
How would you define patriot then?
A nationalist - but good.
Created:
-->
@WyIted
What? Who did that?It looks like a mod deleted the post.
Created: